[00:00:00]
Scott Benton: Hey everyone, Scott Benton here. How are you? I am the host of the Classroom 2 Courtroom podcast where we help you easily transition from a law school student into your professional career as an attorney and where we like to make the practice of law fun. And today we’re going to explore part two. Of building relationships with opposing counsel
[00:01:00]
Scott Benton: Today, in order to help your overall use of the success cycle as far as performing legal services go, we’re going to look at part two of building relationships with opposing counsel. Now, in the previous episode, we talked about building relationships with opposing counsel by using a form of conversation that we refer to as basic communication without advocacy.
I know that’s a mouthful, but in other words, you want to find opportunities where you can talk to opposing counsel without using any persuasion or argumentation. Advocacy generally has an agenda behind it where you’re establishing, maintaining, and furthering the position that you’re fighting for on behalf of your client.
But as we also mentioned, the use of this advocacy style of communication [00:02:00] creates a combative environment that may only get you so far.
And although this is very necessary, I mean, you need to know this style of communication. It’s not the only form of communication. So in the previous episode, we talked about switching to a form of communication that does not use advocacy and it’s more conversational and basic. And although it sounds counterintuitive, it can be extremely effective in gaining a better understanding of the position of the opposing party, which may then lead to a faster resolution that everyone’s happy with.
So communicating without advocacy becomes a tremendously important tool in your attorney’s toolbox to use and why it’s worth digging a little deeper into on this episode. As we’re talking about two different styles of communication, it becomes important to know when to use one style over another. So if you’re giving an opening statement during a trial, you’ll likely not going to want to use a more casual style of [00:03:00] communication that didn’t use advocacy.
In fact, this is the right time that you would want to use advocacy for your client because This is where you’re establishing what you intend to prove, which is going to include persuasion, argumentation, and it’s going to be in a firm and steady voice. So as you’re speaking to a judge and jury, this is an appropriate moment to set the stage for when you’ll be defending your client’s interests later on.
But there’s going to be a point where you want to shift away from advocacy and you want to lean into the basic communication style without using advocacy, where your tone shifts to calm and conversational and knowing when and where to switch and then knowing when and where to switch back.
It can be an important skill to hone to effectively toggle between the two styles or even occasionally blend the two when that becomes necessary. Now, when you get good at this, you’re going to be able to switch effortlessly between advocacy and then the basic communication style, and you’ll be able to do that [00:04:00] easily in the same setting.
You’ll be able to go back and forth. People won’t even notice. Now, knowing when to switch into the basic communication style is equally important. So you don’t come across as a rational or overbearing when that’s not going to serve you or your client’s position. If advocacy, if that tone is used at the wrong time, it could cause your audience to have a negative impression of you, which you really want to avoid.
So What are some examples of when it would be advantageous for you to switch out of advocacy and switch into the basic communication style that does not have advocacy? The basic communication style would likely be more useful when you’re discussing procedural issues or logistical matters, or even off the record negotiations. As an example, you might be in a pre trial conference asking questions about potential settlement options that might be best asked in more of a neutral tone as opposed to an aggressive one.
Because here you’re just gathering information, you’re [00:05:00] asking follow up questions to better understand what the opposing party is looking for so that you can get an idea of how flexible or cooperative they’re going to be. Now this also allows you to talk about settlement options, really without committing to any positions, since you’re not advocating for anything.
You’re listening to exactly what the opposing party wants, which will help you shape your own strategies and your own settlement proposals. So speaking in a calm tone and not reacting to anything the opposing party responds with is also going to help you gather an abundance of information that you might be able to use during settlement negotiations.
So speaking with a non aggressive tone will benefit you more than speaking with an aggressive one. So make sure you know how to strike an effective balance between the two. You might open up a negotiation with basic communication to explore your options through questions, focused listening and non reactive patients.
And then later you might shift into a persuasive [00:06:00] advocacy driven tone during closing arguments. So you want to pick your moment strategically for when you shift your communication style. Also keep in mind that using the basic communication style without advocacy does come with its own set of challenges to consider. So it’s not without potential pitfalls that you’re going to want to avoid.
For instance, you’ll want to resist the urge to always advocate. You might feel like every interaction with a particular opposing counsel is a battlefield. And if so, if that’s how you feel, then you want to focus on practicing restraint. You want to pull it back. You want to maintain a calm and professional demeanor at all times and keep the conversation neutral, even when the other side attempts to escalate the tensions.
Now let’s take some practice, of course, but once you get good at it, your restraint is going to lead to better outcomes. Okay, so focusing on the importance of switching from advocacy to a basic communication tone becomes a key skill that you’re going to want to [00:07:00] develop. Learning to use a more neutral, non reactive tone with opposing counsel and clients helps build professional relationships with the opposing party and it enhances your effectiveness in the courtroom as well as during negotiations you’ll want to consider perfecting.
I’m Scott Benton. I’m the host of the Classroom 2 Courtroom podcast. Thanks so much for checking out this episode. If you like this podcast and you’d like to get more information about us, you can always go to our website at classroom2courtroom. com. That’s classroom, the number two courtroom. com, where you can send us a message to keep in touch with us.
You can even inquire about our seasonal associate programs that we have available for law school students. If you like, you can apply to come and work with us. And as always, don’t forget to share, like, and subscribe to stay on top of all of our latest episodes. And until next time, we hope you’ll join us in making the world a better place, one client at a time.
[00:08:00]
